Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I might actually commend your friend for his endurance and patience.As silly as it sounds (and I myself found it absurd) my friend assured me that he sat through the entire sermon.
Was it on the underwear themselves, or in conjuction with a discussion of the day of atonement?As silly as it sounds (and I myself found it absurd) my friend assured me that he sat through the entire sermon.
From what I recall, it was on the undergarments - they were linen and were white, which seemed to be the springboards for all manner of meanings.Was it on the underwear themselves, or in conjuction with a discussion of the day of atonement?
Apostle Paul does not remain transfixed on an allegory, but speaks of two covenants, one of the law so those of the law are under bondage, and those of faith, which is what set is free.21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Ga 4:21–27.
May there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?
Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?
Paul assumes the existence of the mystical sense (cf. § 40) in Scripture, in which events and figures of the OT are types of the NT. Taking yet another illustration from the history of Abraham, he shows that those who rely on the Law instead of faith in the Promise áre to be excluded from the inheritance; cf. Prat, op. cit., I, 221. 22. Cf. Gen 16:15; 17:15–21; 21:2, 9. 23. ‘According to the flesh’: on the one side all happened according to nature; but on the other, according to a divine promise, miraculously realized. 24. ‘Which things are allegorically interpreted’ as follows. 25. ‘(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia)’: a supplementary confirmation of his interpretation inserted in parenthesis; for Ismael is connected with Arabia through being the ancestor of the chief Arab tribe. Arabia then denoted all the land S. and E. of Palestine. ‘She corresponds to that Jerusalem.…’ 26. i.e. the Church. 27. Cf. Is 54:1, with which the Rabbis connected Is 51:2
Dom B. Orchard, “Galatians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1117.
24. Which things are said by allegory; literally, ἅτινα ὲστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, i.e., the things narrated in Genesis regarding the sons and marriages of Abraham, signifying at the same time other things altogether different from themselves. By an allegory, writers on rhetoric understand a lengthened or continued metaphor. Ecclesiastical writers generally understand it to denote a figure in things, by which one thing is employed to typify or signify another of quite a different nature. “For these,” αὗται γὰρ, i.e., the marriages, or, according to others, the two wives of Abraham. “Are,” i.e., signify “the two Testaments”—viz., the New and the Old. “The one indeed from Mount Sina.” The Old Testament took its rise from Mount Sina; because, there was promulgated the Law, the observance of which was among the primary conditions of the Old Covenant. “Which bringeth forth into bondage.” The Old Testament brought forth children into the bondage of the Mosaic Law, a law of servitude, both on account of the multitude of its precepts, which neither the Jews nor their fathers could bear, as also on account of the spirit of fear which it inspired. “Which is Agar;” and this covenant is represented by Agar.
John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 390–391.
Ancient Christian interpreters practised typological and allegorical readings to uncover the spiritual meaning of biblical texts in order to deepen their understanding of God. They did not consider such readings fanciful or arbitrary because they had a different view of reality from us moderns. Ancient interpreters assumed a connection between mind and a higher order of reality. For them, sacred texts were windows to divine realities. Theologians call this the ‘sacramental’ quality of language and texts, that is, their ability to mediate transcendent, divine truths. Already in the Greek philosophical use of Homer or in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, the text was not read in a strictly literal or historical sense. In contrast to modern literalism, texts were treated as cryptic, containing hidden spiritual insights. Even historical events were means of conveying spiritual truths.
Zimmermann, Jens. Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 84-85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
It seems obvious to me that the significance of underwear involves sexual purity, as circumcision is, as well. Since this is a modest subject, I think a sermon focusing on fig leaves might be better suited?From what I recall, it was on the undergarments - they were linen and were white, which seemed to be the springboards for all manner of meanings.
This is better suited:It seems obvious to me that the significance of underwear involves sexual purity, as circumcision is, as well. Since this is a modest subject, I think a sermon focusing on fig leaves might be better suited?
Like a moth to a flame we are drawn to the crucified Savior. Yes, it is death to our flesh, but he is a living Savior. We are drawn to him who died and who now is risen from the dead. It sounds like a creed, but I've staked my life on it.This is better suited:
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
2 Corinthians 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Knowing the folks of that denomination, it is highly unlikely that there were any sexual allusions. It was probably more along the lines that the priests were mediators between God and man, as is Jesus Christ. Even their undergarments pointed to Jesus in His purity and in the use of linen, as opposed to wool, which would cause the priest to sweat (a very undesirable characteristic)It seems obvious to me that the significance of underwear involves sexual purity, as circumcision is, as well. Since this is a modest subject, I think a sermon focusing on fig leaves might be better suited?
That, my friend, seems to be the price of popularity.Well this rapidly went somewhere I didn't expect.
Yes, as has been said, "sweat" implies work. And only Christ did the work of redemption. For us mortal sinners, it's "no sweat."Knowing the folks of that denomination, it is highly unlikely that there were any sexual allusions. It was probably more along the lines that the priests were mediators between God and man, as is Jesus Christ. Even their undergarments pointed to Jesus in His purity and in the use of linen, as opposed to wool, which would cause the priest to sweat (a very undesirable characteristic)
While this is absolutely true, it has also served as a root of division and heresy, as it still does.
I agree, for the most part. Implemented correctly, the use of allegory can be highly beneficial. However, it is a very slippery slope for some and I have encountered many truly amazing allegorical interpretations of scripture which hardly align with orthodox teaching.On the contrary, a Christological-prophetic interpretation of certain OT texts insulates us from heresy.
We know from Luke 24 that the Old Testament is entirely a prophecy of Christ - most forms of recent error stem from literal-historical readings of the Old Testament that do not directly relate to God’s economy of salvation through His incarnation in the person of the Son and Word, Christ our God.
Conversely, Nestorianism resulted from the coercive implementation in tne Patriarchate of Constantinople of the literal-historical exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Of course, Theodore’s interpretation of Scripture, although literal, would come across as alien to modern ears.
I would note that the best Church Fathers used both literal and Christological-prophetic interpretations of the Old Testament, while leaning towards literalism in the New Testament.
Many of our worst modern errors come from non-literal allegorical eisegesis of New Testament pericopdes, for example, the use of Mark 7 contra 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to attack the tradition of the Catholic Church, the use of 2 Peter to attack the Epistles of St. Paul whenever one disagrees with them, the claim Christ our God was only allegorically speaking of His flesh and blood in the Institution Narrative in 2 Corinthians 11 and the Synoptics and John ch. 6 and the related claim that Baptism of the Spirit excludes baptism in water, the claim of credobaptists that statements of entire households being baptized were not literally true, and the claim of liberal Christians that St. Paul’s statements on sexual morality are not to be taken literally.
To my knowledge, only five denominational groups, plus isolated churches in other denominations, namely - the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, High Church / Anglo Catholic Anglicans of the Continuing Anglican / GAFCON / conservative alignment, and Confessional Lutherans of the Orthodox Evangelical Catholic alignment such as my friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian have managed to avoid these errors (partially in the case of Roman Catholics as there are liberals vying for control such as the German bishops).
They are all allegory/similitude/parable/figures/typesMay there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?
I have encountered many truly amazing allegorical interpretations of scripture which hardly align with orthodox teaching.
As for the Bavarian bishops, you probably know their history. Bavarian Catholicism has had a curious relationship with Rome for a very long time. When the unification of Germany was accomplished by Otto Von Bismarck, the Bavarian Catholics found themselves as relative aliens in a Lutheran and Reformed conglomerate. In any event, we shall see how Pope Leo relates to them. Hopefully, truth and peace will prevail.
Quite true.Indeed, chiefly among liberal Western pastors, both Protestant and Catholic, who embrace Alexandrian exegesis based on the misconception that it provides freedom to innovate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?